Posted on 05/10/2008 11:40:00 AM PDT by The_Republican
With 3 Democrats to choose from, and NO Conservatives... why shouldn’t things look gloomy?
Things look gloomy because when Gingrich took over the House in the nineties he promised a lot of a new approach. What we got was the GOP controlling earmarks.
Folks remember.
It is gloomy. Alaska will very likely fall to the Ds. Fairbanks will be closing down by this time next year.
These turkeys had better wake up and smell the coffee and the winds of change else they will find themselves looking for a pardon from Thanksgiving dinner by an incoming Democrat president!
Wow! I didn’t know that. LOL! This guy gets the respect these days because he is the official liberal debator on FNC.
Then again, Dick “Toe Sucker” Morris is alway on FNC as well. I share his hatred of Hildabeast, so who am I to point fingers at anyone.
One of the greatest crimes in American political history has to be the squandering of political opportunities by Bush and the Republicans during the first 6 years of Bush’s presidency.
Shame. Shame on you all.
But more RINOs. That doesn't help the Republican party at all. Folks know the difference between principled men and phony politicians. Proof positive becoming "moderate" does not help your party.
Barnes is mixing apples and oranges. A conservative win in Britain has nothing to do with Republicans here because there are no conservatives in the Republican party. Well, OK, there are a few but they’ve been told to shut up and sit in the corner.
Sigh.
It took Conservatives 11 years to recover from their landslide loss to Labour in 1997. The Republican recovery—what there is of one—is less than two years old.
The two aren’t comparable. The conservatives don’t have a party in the US.
Bush1 began tearing down the Reagan conservative movement and Bush2 completed the job.
Exactly. Reagan wasn’t supposed to happen. As soon as he was out of the picture, the GOP worked at getting things back to normal as quickly as possible.
Would it be safe to say that conservatives in the UK are not nearly as conservative as we on FR are?
Exactly. 40 more years of wandering in the wilderness is more like what lies ahead. Unfortunately, there won't be a country with elected anythings by that time.
Would it be safe to say that conservatives in the UK are not nearly as conservative as we on FR are?
We’re not always so conservative here on FR, but from the somewhat limited knowledge I have, the UK Conservatives are only conservative in comparison to the other parties.
You nailed it.
“One of the greatest crimes in American political history has to be the squandering of political opportunities by Bush and the Republicans during the first 6 years of Bush’s presidency.
Shame. Shame on you all.”
And as recently as 11/2004, the Republicans were in the strongest position in most anyone’s memory, and perhaps ever. They managed to fritter it away in barely two years.
Well, in Jorge’s famous words: “I have political capital now and I aim to spend it.”
Squandered and frittered it away is much more accurate.
“Bush1 began tearing down the Reagan conservative movement and Bush2 completed the job.”
All too true. Peggy Noonan said it several months ago, that the Bushes are “wastrels” who fritter away political power and influence as if they earned it. They didn’t. They just wasted away what others had earned and built up.
And, to sort of cap off the work of the two Bushes, neither picked a VP who was likely to ever become a strong presidential contender, Quayle because he was an unknown, and Cheney because of health concerns. Neither provided the party with a strong heir apparent, but used the VP spot purely for their own, limited purposes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.